* Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-01-31 at 12:50 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > -module_init(init_acpi_pm_clocksource); > > > +/* > > > + * This clocksource is removed from the clocksource_initcall > > > + * macro since it's mandatory for it to be in fs_initcall as the > > > + * highest initcall level, or else it doesn't work properly with > > > + * it's PCI fix ups. > > > + */ > > > +fs_initcall(init_acpi_pm_clocksource); > > > > ugh - this bit looks quite interesting. > > > > what's the purpose of this patch? Switching to high-res timers > > should be done late in the bootup - in case there's a problem it's > > more debuggable, etc. > > The timekeeping code, and hrt/dynamic tick both wait till after boot > up to switch to high res mode ..
again, let me repeat the question: what's the purpose of this (whole!) patch. Not just of this chunk - the whole patch. You change around initcall levels - why? It makes no sense to me. The explanation in the patch header makes no sense to me. Please if possible try to build clear arguments: first outlining "this is how it worked before: <X>", then outlining "this is how it will work after my change: <Y>", and then maybe a small blurb about "Y is better than X, because: <Z>". That X, Y, Z analysis is what is needed to accept a patch. > The specific code block you commented on above was added cause acpi_pm > has special pci fixups that don't function properly earlier in boot > up. So it can't be arbitrarily raised to order in the initcall > sequence .. i think you misunderstood my comment. In the chunk above you used fs_initcall() initcall instead of clocksource_initcall(). (Which is funny even ignoring the bad hack that clocksource_initcall is defined to fs_initcall.) Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/